Still in shock that this was the decision from the Supreme Court. We (the masses) are always trying to put the justices in these black and white boxes, but now Roberts and previously Barrett have issued decisions that don't seem to be line with that thinking.
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
29 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
561 readers
1 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One common mistake is to think that their reasoning aligns closely with the politics of their parties. Gorsuch, for example, is a conservative, but he'll often come down on the side of Native American rights because their position relative to the government is grounded in contracts and treaties, and he's a hawk when it comes to preserving the right of contract. Once you understand that bias in his thinking, it makes sense as a conservative point of view, but it also means that he sometimes rules in favor of plaintiffs that we'd associate with the liberal side of a case.
Part of what's so flummoxing about Allen v. Milligan is that most of us thought we had Roberts pegged as the anti-VRA guy. He opposed it in the Reagan administration, helped tear down pre-clearance, and has consistently ruled against it. So either something here has recalibrated his position, even if only temporarily, or there's a nuance to position that hasn't really stood out in previous cases.
And Kavanaugh, who knows? I don't have a clear sense of his ideological commitments. Maybe he has none.
Very well said, and it's also interesting because so much of the previous decisions are based on the general attitude of the time or the policies. Like looking back the decisions are technically incorrect in a lot of areas (school integration etc.). Obviously the outcome is "good". But that's where the constitutionalists come in and knock it down.
I read someone suggest they may be worried about their legacy. The current Supreme Court is seen as a farce. Their actions have caused people to question their legitimacy, so they may be worried that they will be seen as the ones who destroyed the Supreme Court. In other words they might be seen as the bad guys and so are now trying to subdue a bit of that thinking. It's not really going to work for them unless they consistently stop the corrruption, but these people are so easily bought.
But who knows really why they decided to go this route.
It's also low hanging fruit, since the state could drag their feet on redistricting until it's too close to the 2024 election. So the party doesn't lose seats and the Supreme Courts gets to say they threw human decency a bone.
That's a possibility. This case followed a delay where the Court voted to allow the now-rejected maps to be used in 2022. There's a loose standard around whether an unfair map can be used. Realistically, we're far out enough that every state should be able to redistrict in time for 2024. But a lot depends on the lower courts, because what will likely happen is that the states will cheerfully submit different maps that are just as imbalanced, and we'll have to watch multiple rounds of court orders, new maps, appeals, and so fourth. In some cases, courts have given an ultimatum: Provide a fair map, or we'll appoint an independent committee to provide one for you. So that's one way out of the morass, it's just a matter of whether or not the judges involved will go that route, and whether or not SCOTUS will defer to the lower courts when the appeal gets that high.
Maybe they're worried about legacy, wouldn't doubt it. But it does, a lot of the time come down to the strict constitutionalists vs. those who are more willing to be open to interpretation and intent.
That's a fair point.
Roberts’ opinion brought a strongly worded dissent from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who accused the majority — including his colleague Brett M. Kavanaugh — of creating a “consciously segregated districting system” in the name of the Voting Rights Act.
I really want to know what he thinks the current system is if it's not that.
Intent is a pretty big question when it comes to cases like this. When Congress reauthorized the VRA in the 80s, the rewrote part of it to shift the focus to impact. In other words, districting changes that disadvantaged racial minorities has to be changed, even if the impact was unintentional. That's part of why Republicans in South Carolina a few years back felt safe saying, "No, these districts were intended to disadvantage Democrats." The law forbade redistricting to break up the voting block of a racial minority, but not for partisan gain. It just happened to be the case that the Democrats in the targeted district were mostly black.
Focusing on impact, rather than intent, helps prevent that sort of sleight of hand. And, as a result, some Republicans are deadset on shifting back to an intent-based standard, which is far more dificult to prove. Thomas is a notorious opponent of the impact standard—presumably because he believes that structural remedies to racism are just as bad for Black Americans as unmitigated racism. A stance that starts to seem pretty tortured in light of revelations about his relationship to Harlan Crow.
Oh, yeah. I realize that there's a lot of nuance at play. It's just that I'm a historian who grew up in the Deep South, so I'm well aware that whatever other excuses and loopholes are used, it's ultimately all about trying to reinstate segregation by another name. Because it always is.
Totally.
Thomas is a notorious opponent of the impact standard
Thomas is unwilling to argue in good faith. Just as his mentor, Scalia, he is becoming an exceptional contortionist in interpreting the law.
That's a great spot of positive news out of the Supreme Court!
view more: next ›